4 ms·

Do US Courts ever make judgements like this? It's akin to compelling speech.

ksec 14y ago
Exactly. Again i have difficulty understanding the notion behind it. You can rule, and fine, or what ever you want. But you cant force me to apologise or admit something that i do not believe in.
- codeulike 14y ago
  They weren't asked to apologise or say they believed anything. They were asked to publish a certain statement, giving the facts of the outcome of the case. Along the lines of "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that ....". So they were asked to publish a statement of fact on their own site and in several newspapers. But they added extra stuff to the end, thus changing the tone and context. I'm trying to find out what they were originally asked to print so we can compare to what they actually did. edit: Point 87 of the judgement here says what they were supposed to publish: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link [link given]. That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe."
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- chimeracoder 14y ago
  > But you cant force me to apologise or admit something that i do not believe in. This is not an apology. It's a publication of the facts, as determined by a court of law. In the US, slander and libel are both illegal, as is defamation, etc. Part of the judicial process is to determine the facts of the case. After the facts are determined and the defendant is acquitted, the plaintiff can't keep publicly affirming the defendant's guilt without risking consequences. This is completely precedented. Once the courts have determined that Samsung didn't copy Apple, Apple can't keep advertising publicly that Samsung copied them. In this case, Apple acted as if they had already won by prematurely advertising a victory ('Samsung copied us!'), so they're being required to retract that. (Typical disclaimers of UK vs US law and IANAL apply, though my point is that this would not be unusual or unreasonable if it had happened in the US).
  - michaelfeathers 14y ago
    > Once the courts have determined that Samsung didn't copy Apple, Apple can't keep advertising publicly that Samsung copied them. Devil's Advocate -- Can they mention decisions in other jurisdictions and the fact that they don't agree with the court?
    - chimeracoder 14y ago
      > Can they mention decisions in other jurisdictions No, because those jurisdictions aren't relevant once the court has already made a ruling for its own jurisdiction. > the fact that they don't agree with the court? There's nothing to 'disagree' about. As far as the court is concerned, once it's made a ruling, it's determined the facts, and you can't disagree with their facts. There's nothing to appeal in an acquittal (because of double-jeopardy), so the courts have had their final word on the matter. This is a civil case, but to use the analogy in a criminal case: once the defendant in a murder trail has been acquitted, the prosecutor can't continue to say, "The court has determined the facts, but I have a different opinion."
oneandoneis2 14y ago
Some US courts make judgements that will end a human life, and you think what's shocking is that a UK court can order a company to retract a claim that has been found to be false?
- grimtrigger 14y ago
  Can't they both be shocking?
- philwelch 14y ago
  Yes, in the case that one is convicted of extremely heinous murder, not in the case that one loses a patent suit.
wutbrodo 14y ago
It seems broadly similar to the warning on cigarette cartons. Though now it's explicitly under the label: "SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING", for a period of time it simply said "Cigarette smoking is hazardous to your health".

ksec 14y ago

Exactly. Again i have difficulty understanding the notion behind it. You can rule, and fine, or what ever you want. But you cant force me to apologise or admit something that i do not believe in.

codeulike 14y ago
They weren't asked to apologise or say they believed anything. They were asked to publish a certain statement, giving the facts of the outcome of the case. Along the lines of "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that ....". So they were asked to publish a statement of fact on their own site and in several newspapers. But they added extra stuff to the end, thus changing the tone and context. I'm trying to find out what they were originally asked to print so we can compare to what they actually did. edit: Point 87 of the judgement here says what they were supposed to publish: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1339.html "On 9th July 2012 the High Court of Justice of England and Wales ruled that Samsung Electronic (UK) Limited's Galaxy Tablet Computers, namely the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Tab 8.9 and Tab 7.7 do not infringe Apple's registered design No. 0000181607-0001. A copy of the full judgment of the High court is available on the following link [link given]. That Judgment has effect throughout the European Union and was upheld by the Court of Appeal on ….. A copy of the Court of Appeal's judgment is available on the following link […]. There is no injunction in respect of the registered design in force anywhere in Europe."
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
chimeracoder 14y ago
> But you cant force me to apologise or admit something that i do not believe in. This is not an apology. It's a publication of the facts, as determined by a court of law. In the US, slander and libel are both illegal, as is defamation, etc. Part of the judicial process is to determine the facts of the case. After the facts are determined and the defendant is acquitted, the plaintiff can't keep publicly affirming the defendant's guilt without risking consequences. This is completely precedented. Once the courts have determined that Samsung didn't copy Apple, Apple can't keep advertising publicly that Samsung copied them. In this case, Apple acted as if they had already won by prematurely advertising a victory ('Samsung copied us!'), so they're being required to retract that. (Typical disclaimers of UK vs US law and IANAL apply, though my point is that this would not be unusual or unreasonable if it had happened in the US).
- michaelfeathers 14y ago
  > Once the courts have determined that Samsung didn't copy Apple, Apple can't keep advertising publicly that Samsung copied them. Devil's Advocate -- Can they mention decisions in other jurisdictions and the fact that they don't agree with the court?
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    > Can they mention decisions in other jurisdictions No, because those jurisdictions aren't relevant once the court has already made a ruling for its own jurisdiction. > the fact that they don't agree with the court? There's nothing to 'disagree' about. As far as the court is concerned, once it's made a ruling, it's determined the facts, and you can't disagree with their facts. There's nothing to appeal in an acquittal (because of double-jeopardy), so the courts have had their final word on the matter. This is a civil case, but to use the analogy in a criminal case: once the defendant in a murder trail has been acquitted, the prosecutor can't continue to say, "The court has determined the facts, but I have a different opinion."

oneandoneis2 14y ago

Some US courts make judgements that will end a human life, and you think what's shocking is that a UK court can order a company to retract a claim that has been found to be false?

grimtrigger 14y ago
Can't they both be shocking?
philwelch 14y ago
Yes, in the case that one is convicted of extremely heinous murder, not in the case that one loses a patent suit.

wutbrodo 14y ago

It seems broadly similar to the warning on cigarette cartons. Though now it's explicitly under the label: "SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING", for a period of time it simply said "Cigarette smoking is hazardous to your health".